United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H. Rodriguez, United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on a motion of Defendant
Harrah's Atlantic City Operating Company's motion
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(i) for reconsideration of the
Court's March 29, 2018 Opinion and Order partially
denying Defendant's motion to for summary judgment. Upon
considering the arguments set forth by the motion, the Court
will deny reconsideration.
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d
906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). It must be stressed, however, that
reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy” and
is granted “sparingly.” NL Indus., Inc. v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F.Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J.
succeed on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party
must show “more than a disagreement” with the
decision it would like reconsidered. Anders v. FPA
Corp., 164 F.R.D. 383, 387 (D.N.J. 1995). Instead, there
must be some “dispositive factual matters or
controlling decisions of law” that were presented to
the Court, but not considered. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v.
Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 215 F.Supp.2d 482, 507
(D.N.J. 2002); United States v. Compaction Sys.
Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 339, 345 (D.N.J.1999). Thus, a
“mere recapitulation of the cases and arguments
considered by the court before rendering the original
decision” does not warrant a grant of reconsideration.
Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F.Supp.
705, 706 (D.N.J. 1989), modified, 919 F.2d 225 (3d
Cir. 1990); accord In re Gabapentin Patent
Litigation, 432 F.Supp.2d 461, 463 (D.N.J. 2006);
S.C. v. Deptford Twp. Bd. of Educ., 248 F.Supp.2d
368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003).
motion for reconsideration will likewise fail if the moving
party merely raises arguments or presents evidence that could
have been raised or presented before the original decision
was reached. NL Indus, 935 F.Supp. at 516. Thus, the
moving party must actually present “something new or
something overlooked by the court in rendering the earlier
decision.” Khair v. Campbell Soup Co., 893
F.Supp. 316, 337 (D.N.J. 1995) (citing Harsco Corp.,
779 F.2d at 909). The word “overlooked” is the
operative term and has been consistently interpreted as
referring only to facts and legal arguments that might
reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion had they
been considered. Summerfield v. Equifax, 264 F.R.D.
133, 145 (D.N.J. 2009) (citing United States v.
DeLaurentis, 83 F.Supp.2d 455, 474 n.2 (D.N.J. 2000)).
have not presented the Court with an intervening change in
the controlling law, evidence not previously available, or a
clear error of law that will result in manifest injustice.
Defendants have argued that the Court overlooked applicable
negligence principles and that the Court failed to address
Defendant's request for summary judgment as to
Plaintiffs' lack of medical expert opinion. The
Court's opinion sets forth the applicable law and
reasoning for potential liability against Defendant
Harrah's. As a result, the negligence principles
underscoring Harrah's potential liability were not
overlooked when the Court determined that Count III had been
sufficiently pled in its opinion and as addressed during oral
also claims that the Court failed to address the fact that it
never received the medical expert report of Plaintiff's
named expert, Dr. Albert Anaim. During oral argument,
Plaintiff's counsel averred that the report was sent to
the Defendant's well before it was attached to the
Plaintiff's opposition to the summary judgment motion and
that the Defendants never mentioned the absence of the report
when they noticed the expert's deposition. The Court
accepted Plaintiff's counsel's averment during oral
argument and believed the issue was moot because counsel has
proof she sent the expert report to defendants' counsel.
To the extent that was not made clear during oral argument on
the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has offered
sufficient proof to survive summary judgment on the issue of
IT IS ORDERED this 14th day of February, 2019 that
Defendant's motion for reconsideration  of this
Court's March ...